California Proposition 29, Tobacco Tax For Cancer Research Fund Initiative (June 2012)

California Proposition 29
Election date June 5, 2012
Topic Tobacco and Taxes
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 29 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 5, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported: increasing the state tax on cigarettes by $0.05 per cigarette or $1.00 per 20-count pack of cigarettes, thereby increasing the total state tax from $0.87 per pack to $1.87 per pack; using the additional tax revenue to fund the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund; establishing a nine-member committee to oversee the administration of the fund; and requiring the Board of Equalization to set an annual tax comparable to the additional cigarette tax on other tobacco products.

A "no" vote opposed increasing the state tax on cigarettes by $0.05 per cigarette or $1.00 per 20-count pack of cigarettes and using the additional tax revenue to fund the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund.

Election results[edit]

California Proposition 29
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,568,715	49.77%
No		2,592,791	50.23%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design[edit]

See also: Full text

Cigarette tax[edit]

Proposition 29 would have increased the tax on a single cigarette by $0.05 for a total increase of $1.00 on a 20-count pack of cigarettes. At the time of the election, the rate was $0.87 per pack, and the measure would have increased it to $1.87 per pack. Proposition 29 would have generated about $735 million annually in new tax revenue according to a 2012 report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Additionally, Proposition 29 would have levied a one-time floor stock tax on every cigarette dealer or wholesaler for each cigarette in his or her possession at a rate of $0.05 per cigarette. The tax would have taken effect in October 2012.^[1][2]

Proposition 29 would have also required the Board of Equalization (BOE) to set an annual tax on other tobacco products comparable to the rate established by Proposition 29 to fund the purposes of Proposition 99 (1988), which include health education, hospital services, physician services, research and public resources.

The last time a cigarette tax was on the California ballot was in 2006 when Proposition 86 was defeated. Proposition 86 would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per pack of cigarettes.

California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund[edit]

The new tax revenue would have been deposited into a new fund—the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund. The additional tax revenue deposited into the fund would have been used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement. The net revenue from the tax would have been allocated as follows:^[1]

• 60% (approximately $468 million annually) for the research fund,
• 20% (approximately $156 million annually) for the Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Fund,
• 15% (approximately $117 million annually) for the facilities fund,
• 3% (approximately $ 23 million annually) for law enforcement, and
• 2% (approximately $16 million annually) for the administration of the committee.

California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee[edit]

Proposition 29 would have created a nine-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee would have consisted of:

• three chancellors from University of California campuses (Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz),
• four governor-appointed members, three of whom must be directors of one of California cancer centers, and
• two members appointed by the director of the Department of Public Health, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco-related illness.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 29 was as follows:

“

Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Imposes additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. Requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs. Creates nine-member committee charged with administering the fund.[

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact[edit]

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

“

Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013–14 for research into cancer and tobacco-related disease, and for tobacco prevention and cessation programs. These revenues would decline slightly each year thereafter. Increase in excise tax revenues on other tobacco products of about $50 million annually, going mainly to existing health and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Net increase in state and local sales tax revenues of about $10 million to $20 million annually. Unknown net impact on other long-term state and local government health care costs.[3]

”

^[4]

Support[edit]

Californians for a Cure led the campaign in support of Proposition 29. This campaign was co-chaired by two cancer survivors: the 7-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, and retired President pro Tempore of the California State Senate, Don Perata. Perata authored the measure.^[5]

Supporters[edit]

• American Cancer Society^[5]
• American Lung Association in California^[5]
• American Heart Association^[5]
• American Stroke Association^[5]
• Lance Armstrong Foundation (Livestrong)^[5]
• Laura Ziskin, co-founder of Stand Up To Cancer^[5]
• Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids^[5]
• Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, Nobel Laureate^[5]
• Dr. Balazs Bodai, Congressional Gold Medal Nominee^[5]
• Tom Torlakson, the former California Superintendent of Public Instruction^[5]

Arguments[edit]

• Antonio Villaraigosa, the mayor of Los Angeles, said, “We’ve worked hard to improve the health of our community and we need to take the next step. Prop 29 will save lives, keep our kids from smoking, and fund cancer research that may just lead us to cures."^[6]
• George Skelton, a Los Angeles Times columnist said, tobacco companies are "worried about whether Californians will continue to buy smokes and send money to out-of-state tobacco companies. Prop. 29 would increase cancer research. Reduce smoking. Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. Good plan."^[7]
• Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, stated, "Every day, tobacco kills. Right now, big tobacco is pouring tens of millions into California to defeat a common-sense measure that would help reduce tobacco use, and something has to be done about it."^[8]
• Joe Debbs of the American Heart Association said, "It's this simple: A no vote on Proposition 29 supports tobacco companies' strategy of singling out poor people and people of color for addiction and death. A yes vote on Proposition 29 is a vote for better health and life-saving research. From our perspective, there is no middle ground. You're either with us, or you buy big tobacco's lies."^[9]
• Jim Knox, a spokesperson for the American Cancer Society, said, "Using tobacco taxes to pay for cancer research makes sense. Tobacco use causes cancer. The connection is very direct."^[5]
• Kristiina Vuori, M.D., Ph.D., president and director of the Sanford-Burnham National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center, and Sherry Lansing, chair of the University of California Board of Regents, former CEO of Paramount Pictures, and co-founder of Stand Up to Cancer, said, "In addition to saving lives and lowering health care costs, the passage of Prop 29 will help stimulate the state’s economy by creating and saving jobs in California. The biotechnology industry has been a shining example of stability and growth in our state over the past several decades, and is an area we should be turning to now to help our state recover from economic decline."^[10]
• Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group said, "California has not raised cigarette taxes since 2000. It's simple really: some of the money that goes to tobacco should help fight addiction and cure disease. Prop 29 does both."^[11]

Donors[edit]

Total campaign cash
Support:	$12,300,000
Opposition:	$46,900,000

Approximately $12.3 million was contributed to the campaign for a "yes" vote on Proposition 29.

Three campaign committees registered with Cal-Access as supporters of Proposition 29. They were:

• Californians for a Cure, sponsored by the American Cancer Society California Division, Inc., American Lung Association in California, American Heart Association & Cancer Research Doctors^[12]
• The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network California Ballot Issue Committee^[13]
• The Hope 2010 Cure Cancer (Perata Ballot Measure Committee)^[14]

On February 15, Lance Armstrong announced that his Texas-based foundation would give a $1.5 million contribution to the "Yes on 29" committee.^[5]

These were the main donors to the "yes" side of the Proposition 29 campaign as of June 5, 2012:

Donor	Amount
American Cancer Society	$8,467,937
Lance Armstrong Foundation	$1,500,000
American Heart Association	$563,594
Michael Bloomberg	$500,000
American Lung Association	$421,986
Volunteers Organized for Community Empowerment	$152,188
ACS Cancer Action Network	$80,000
Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund	$65,000
University of California/San Francisco Foundation	$50,000
Irwin Mark Jacobs	$30,000
Alex Padilla's Ballot Measure Committee	$25,450
T. Gary Rogers	$25,000
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center	$25,000
National Dialogue on Cancer Foundation	$15,000
The Don Perata 2004 campaign fund	$13,504
Tench Coxe	$10,000
Mark Segal	$10,000
Delta Dental of California	$5,000
Malin Burnham	$5,000
James Falaschi	$5,000
Robert Klein	$5,000
Sharon Long	$5,000
Rubio for Senate 2014	$5,000

Paid consultants[edit]

See also: Vendors and consultants to California's 2012 ballot proposition campaigns

Political consultants who provided paid services to the "Yes on 29" campaign included:

• Olson, Hagel & Fishburn: $187,028 (through March 2012)
• Tramutola Advisors: $70,425 (through March 2012)
• Oakland City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente received a $37,500 consulting fee in August 2009 from "Hope 2010," a ballot measure committee controlled by the supporting campaign's co-chairman, Don Perata. He was tasked with "contacting 10 labor groups for petition signatures and 10 business groups for campaign contributions in the Sacramento and Oakland areas."^[15] According to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2012, "None of the payments was disclosed on De La Fuente's statement of outside earnings as a councilman and head of the Coliseum authority."^[16]

Opposition[edit]

Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending led the No on 29 campaign.^[17]

Opponents[edit]

• R.J. Reynolds^[18]
• Philip Morris^[18]
• California Taxpayers Association^[18]
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association^[18]
• FreedomWorks^[18]
• Americans for Prosperity^[18]
• California Republican Party^[19]
• Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.^[20]

Arguments[edit]

• Teresa Casazza of the California Taxpayers Association said, "There's no doubt that we all support cancer research. But like high-speed rail, stem-cell research and other ballot-box budget initiatives before it, Proposition 29's good intentions are overshadowed by the fact that California simply cannot afford another billion-dollar government boondoggle to create another wasteful spending program."^[21]
• Mark Paul, a former deputy state treasurer, argued that the state had more urgent financial needs: "Like many initiatives, this plays to people's emotions. Who likes cancer? Nobody does. But when we're raising tuition at universities and shortening the … school year and shutting down core services, is this where we should be spending our money?"^[5]
• David Kline, a spokesperson for the California Taxpayers Association, said, "We don’t think it makes sense to create a new body of political appointees to oversee this money when the money coming in simply won’t be enough to keep the program going. The fact that they are all political appointees raises the issue of whether there will be more politics involved than hard science or real budgetary expertise."^[22]
• Jay McKeeman of the California Independent Oil Marketers Association said, "While the goals of the proposition may be laudable, we believe state funding for such purposes should be integrated into the overall needs of the state and balanced with other important priorities. This proposition does not provide for that ability; it dictates revenue use without other important considerations."^[23]
• David Williams of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance said, "[T]he additional revenue will be used to expand an already bloated bureaucracy and do nothing to help the state out of its financial mess. The federal government already spends $6 billion a year on cancer research and any research on a serious disease like cancer should be coordinated at the national level rather than a patchwork of research done at the state level."^[24]
• Reed Royalty, the president of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, said, "Even worse for California taxpayers, Prop. 29 doesn't require the tax revenue to be spent in California. Tax dollars raised under the measure could go out of state or even out of the country. Our state faces an unemployment rate of 10.9 percent, one of the highest in the nation. Funding for schools and other critical services has been cut by billions, and we have long-term debt of more than $200 billion. California tax dollars should stay in California to help create jobs here, not to create jobs in other states and countries, as Prop. 29 allows."^[25]
• Debra Saunders, a columnist for Townhall, "I cannot help but look at Prop. 29 and wonder: If raising state cigarette taxes should reduce smoking all by itself, why not put the new money in the state's cash-starved general fund? When Sacramento has to implement further cuts or new taxes to fill a gaping hole, why did Prop. 29's authors insist on raising money to bankroll their preferred programs?"^[26]
• Thomas Briant, the executive director of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, said, "California already faces a significant amount of contraband trafficking in cigarettes and a $10 per carton tax increase is likely to increase this kind of illegal behavior to the detriment of law-abiding tobacco retailers."^[27]

Donors[edit]

Total campaign cash
Support:	$12,300,000
Opposition:	$46,800,000

Approximately $46.8 million was contributed to the campaign for a "no" vote on Proposition 29.^[28][29]

Two campaign committees were established to support the campaign urging a "no" vote. They were called:

• "Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending, Major Funding by Philip Morris USA and UST LLC, with a Coalition of Taxpayers, Small Businesses, Law Enforcement and Labor."
• California Citizens Against Wasteful Taxes - No on Prop 29

The largest donors to either or both of these committees, and their donation levels, were:

Donor	Amount
Altria/Philip Morris	$27,531,416
R.J. Reynolds	$11,168,698
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco (Altria/UST LLC)	$3,039,818
American Snuff Company (a Reynolds division)	$1,750,000
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (a Reynolds division)	$1,148,000
California Republican Party	$1,140,909
John Middleton Company (via Altria), an affiliate of Philip Morris	$737,201
Core-Mark	$75,032
McClane Company, Inc.	$50,000
Californians Against Unaccountable Taxes	$47,744
International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers	$40,000
Trepco West	$30,200
Pacific Groservice	$25,000
Prometheus International	$2,500
Tatuaje Cigars, Inc.	$2,500
Santa Barbara Cigar & Tobacco	$1,000

In 2006, about $66 million was spent to successfully defeat Proposition 86, which would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund various health programs and tobacco use prevention programs.

Media editorials[edit]

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support[edit]

• The Bakersfield Californian: "The cost of smoking-related illness in the state comes out to nearly $10.50 per pack sold. Who pays for these health costs? All of us. It's perfectly reasonable to require smokers to pay a token user fee for such a reckless habit. California is long overdue in taking this step."^[30]

• Chico News & Review: "Big Tobacco is going to spend whatever it takes to defeat Proposition 29. Voters should remember what this is really about: powerful, rich corporations trying to addict people to a deadly product."^[31]

• The Desert Sun: "On June 5, California voters have a chance to save 104,000 lives. We can prevent 228,000 youngsters from starting to smoke. We can generate $500 million for cancer research. And unless you're among the roughly 12 percent of Californians who smoke, it won't cost you a thing."^[32]

• Marin Independent Journal: "Opponents say the state has bigger financial problems and doesn't need more ballot-box budgeting, in which voters approve taxes for narrowly-defined purposes. Opponents are right, but a tobacco tax to promote public health makes sense."^[33]

• The Sacramento Bee: "...the potential benefits of raising the tobacco tax outweigh the uncertainties posed by Prop. 29 governance. And that's the bottom line. To discourage smoking and save lives, California must again raise the tobacco tax."^[34]

• Santa Barbara Independent: "There may, in fact, be a lot of problems with the fine print of Proposition 29, but anything that discourages people from smoking by increasing the cost of cigarettes is a positive step."^[35]

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "And here's a significant benefit of raising tobacco taxes: It makes cigarettes and other tobacco products more expensive. Even though slightly fewer than 12 percent of the state's population still smoke, raising the cost makes it less likely young people can afford to purchase cigarettes."^[36]

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Any regular reader of the U-T San Diego editorial page knows that we do not often support tax increases. But we support this one. It’s good for public health. It’s good for San Diego and California. And it’s good for California kids."^[37]

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "California, once a leader in reducing tobacco use, is now 33rd in state tobacco taxes at 87 cents. Research has shown conclusively that price is one of the biggest factors in deterring young people from smoking. Our Legislature has shown no willingness to take on Big Tobacco, which has co-opted enough allies to reject any new tax measure. Prop. 29 is a well-crafted measure that will save lives. Voters should approve it."^[38]

• The San Francisco Examiner': "The harm done by cigarettes is costly, and it is time for smokers to start carrying the burden of research into smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Proposition 29, which is on the June 5 ballot, would levy a $1 tax on every pack of cigarettes sold in the state. We encourage everyone to vote yes."^[39]

• The San Jose Mercury News: "Big Tobacco's ads against Proposition 29 would have you believe doctors are against it. That's a hoot. Dr. James T. Hay, president of the 35,000-member California Medical Association, says: "Doctors are dedicated to keeping people healthy and saving lives. Tobacco companies and their products aren't. Don't be fooled."^[40]'

• Santa Maria Times: "As we mentioned earlier, we aren’t big fans of budget decisions being made at the ballot box, but the potential to have fewer smokers — and therefore healthier citizens — in California easily trumps our concern about citizens possibly usurping the responsibilities of our elected leaders."^[41]

• The Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "The fact is nine out of every 10 habitual smokers in California started the habit before they were 18 years old. The time to prevent the habit is before it begins. This will help."^[42]

• Vallejo Times-Herald: "Smokers cost their families and the state billions each year in health costs, lost productivity and long-term care. The hundreds of thousands of smoking-related deaths each year is an intolerable evil and must be addressed more aggressively."^[43]

Opposition[edit]

• The Appeal-Democrat: They wrote two editorials opposing Proposition 29. In the first, they said, "[The] projected revenue assumes the new tax doesn't both suppress tobacco use — already at 15 percent in California, the second-lowest level among the states — while expanding black-market traffic in cigarettes. We have a better idea. Nix the taxes — at least until the economy starts growing everywhere, not just along the coasts."^[44] In the second, they said, "Taxes should be limited to paying for the legitimate functions of government, which should be limited to protecting the peoples' rights, not punishing their bad habits."^[45]

• The Chico Enterprise Record: "Only 60 percent of the millions to be gathered under Proposition 29 will go to researching cancer. The rest pays for other things — like new buildings, new equipment, a new committee and all the trappings that go along with it. We're not in favor of smoking but we're not in favor of hiking taxes just because it can be done."^[46]

• Eastern Group Publications (including the Eastside Sun, Northeast Sun, Mexican American Sun, Bell Gardens Sun, City Terrace Comet, Commerce Comet, Montebello Comet, Monterey Park Comet, ELA Brookyln Belvedere Comet, Wyvernwood Chronicle and the Vernon Sun): "It makes no sense to us to adopt a measure that will raise money to create ongoing programs when the source of the revenue is destined to diminish over time, as we have seen with other initiatives. We cannot support this tax measure during our current fiscal climate."^[47]

• The Fresno Bee: "Our beef with Proposition 29 is not that it would discourage people from smoking by making cigarettes and other tobacco products more expensive, but that instead of using this new tax revenue to address the state's unmet needs, it would create a new bureaucracy."^[48]

• Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 29 is well intentioned, but it just doesn't make sense for the state to get into the medical research business to the tune of half a billion dollars a year when it has so many other important unmet needs. California can't afford to retain its K-12 teachers, keep all its parks open, give public college students the courses they need to earn a degree or provide adequate home health aides for the infirm or medical care for the poor. If the state is going to raise a new $735 million, it should put the money in the general fund rather than dedicating it to an already well-funded research effort."^[49]

• The Merced Sun-Star: "Of even greater concern to us is that Proposition 29 is another example of ballot-box budgeting -- earmarking tax revenue that can only be used for a narrow purpose and ignoring higher and more pressing priorities for the state as a whole. Californians have too often bought into these emotional appeals...We, as voters, have to stop attaching so many strings to spending that there's nowhere near enough for truly vital services -- schools, universities, law enforcement and prosecutions. The midst of a prolonged recession is no time to be creating a major new state agency."^[50]

• The Modesto Bee: "This tax revenue would not be available for kindergarten-12th grade schools, community colleges, universities or even current health care services to the needy — including smokers. Instead, 75 percent of it would go to create Hope 2010 — a major new research effort into the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cures for cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Sixty percent of that would be for the research, which might or might not be conducted in California, and 15 percent for new buildings and equipment."^[51]

• The North County Times: "With the state facing an annual budget deficit measured in the billions of dollars per year, it is unconscionable to divert a three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar stream to a new bureaucracy. If we are going to engage in regressive taxation, then that money should at least go toward maintaining the schools, roads and other state programs that benefit all of us."^[52]

• The Orange County Register: "...in California, taxes are ubiquitous, burdensome and even, one might argue, rampant. California's combined tax burden ranks it 48th-worse among the states. It is one of the primary reasons for the state's high cost of living, high rate of unemployment and stagnant economy."^[53]

• The Riverside Press-Enterprise: "Prop. 29 asks Californians to tie the state’s tangled finances in even bigger knots, to pay for services that are not a priority for the state’s limited public funds. The measure would repeat a mistake voters have made repeatedly, such as with Prop. 10 in 1998 and Prop. 49 in 2002: Those measures earmark public money for particular programs, regardless of how that spending fits into the larger budget picture."^[54]

• The San Bernardino Sun: "The goals may be noble, and the measure has a certain feel-good appeal, but it would add to bureaucracy and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into an effort that is not among the state's highest priorities right now."^[55]

• The Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Opponents claim $125 million of the new taxes raised will be spent annually on overhead costs, buildings and real estate and bureaucracy. In our minds, that is $125 million too much, and it’s money that should be devoted exclusively to cancer prevention and treatment. Yet, actually treating people stricken by cancer is not a part of this proposition. The tax dollars raised are only to fund research and research buildings. Tax dollars may even go to for-profit corporations engaged in research activities."^[56]

• The Union Democrat: "Well, once again, the state is relying on a regressive tax to pay for programs. To boot, only a share of the tax revenues will go to cancer research, the rest going to maintain a governor-appointed oversight board and toward law enforcement expenses intended to curb smuggling and tax evasion, both of which seem more likely as the cost of cigarettes rise."^[57]

• The Ventura County Star: "While no one is against cancer research, as far as government is involved it's an area traditionally and appropriately dealt with at the national level. It's a poor idea for the state to embark on a costly, new burden like this at a time when California can't afford to fulfill its present obligations — and when the federal government already spends billions of dollars a year in this area of research."^[58]

Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A poll taken in late February 2012 by Public Policy Institute of California showed that a majority of likely voters support Proposition 29.^[59][60] The same group measured sentiment on the measure from May 14-20, and reported that "Two weeks before the June primary, just over half of likely voters say they will vote yes on a proposition to impose an additional $1 tax on cigarettes—a big decline in support from March."^[61]

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint jointly conducted a poll for USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll from March 14-19, 2012.^[62]

Heading into the election, Field Poll surveyed 608 likely voters; this poll showed that support for Proposition 29 was tailing off as the election approached.^[63] A poll conducted a week earlier of 1,002 voters between May 17-21 by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint for the Los Angeles Times showed much greater support for Proposition 29 than was found in the Field Poll.^[64]

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
February 21-28, 2012	PPIC	67%	30%	3%	2,001
March 14-19, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	68%	29%	3%	1,500
May 14-20, 2012	PPIC	53%	42%	5%	2,002
May 17-21, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	62%	33%	5%	1,002
May 21-29, 2012	Field	50%	42%	8%	608

Background[edit]

Tobacco taxes in California[edit]

At the time of the election, California’s cigarette tax was 87 cents per pack (with an equivalent tax on other types of tobacco products) and was levied on cigarette distributors who supplied cigarettes to retail stores.

At $0.87 per pack, California had the 33rd highest (or 17th lowest) tobacco tax in the United States in 2012. The average state tax on tobacco in the United States was $1.45.^[65] In 2012, California was one of three states (North Dakota and Missouri) in the United States that had not raised the tax on tobacco since 1999.^[66]

The additional $1.00 levied by Proposition 29 would have made California tobacco taxes the 15th highest (or 35th lowest) in the United States.

The total $0.87 per pack tax was made up of the following components in 2012:^[67]

• $0.50 per pack pursuant to Proposition 10 to support childhood development programs.
• $0.25 per pack pursuant to Proposition 99 (1988).^[68]
• $0.10 per pack for the state General Fund.
• $0.02 per pack enacted through a separate measure approved by the Legislature and Governor in 1993 to create the Breast Cancer Fund, which supports research efforts related to breast cancer and breast cancer screening programs for uninsured women.

Sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products also were subject to the sales and use tax, which was imposed on their price including excise taxes.

In addition, the federal government imposed an excise tax. As of 2012, it was $1.01 per pack. According to the California Voter Guide, this was to help fund the Children's Health Insurance Program.^[67]

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements

• On September 22, 2009, the law firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title for the initiative.
• The measure was given an official ballot title on December 17, 2009, with a petition circulation deadline of May 17, 2010.
• Arno Political Consultants was hired to collect the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.^[69]
• In June 2010, supporters of the measure submitted 633,453 raw signatures. The number required was 433,971 signatures.
• On August 24, 2010, the California Secretary of State confirmed that Proposition 29 had qualified for the February 5, 2012 ballot. The California State Legislature voted to terminate the February 5, 2012 election date. This moved Proposition 29 to the June 5, 2012 ballot.
• On October 7, 2011, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 202. SB 202 prohibited holding ballot proposition elections during June primaries. However, it applied only to ballot propositions that qualified on or after the date SB 202 was signed. Thus, the vote on Proposition 29 remained on June 5, 2012.^[70][71]

Signature gathering costs[edit]

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

• The campaign behind Proposition 29 dispersed $663,867 to Arno Political Consultants for signature-gathering.^[72][73]

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Tobacco tax's effect on public universities' research funding[edit]

Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UC San Francisco, released a study about the potential impact of Proposition 29 on February 6, 2012. According to the Glantz study, "It’ll have a direct impact on UC Berkeley and UCSF because there will be a lot of money put into research, and some part of that will be done at the University of California and at UCSF."^[22]

The full report is available here.

See also

External links[edit]

• California Voter Guide: Proposition 29
• Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title
• Proposition 29 on Smart Voter
• Proposition 29 on California Choices

Supporters: Website of "Californians for a Cure" Californians for a Cure Hope 2010 Cure Cancer American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network California Ballot Issue Committee

Opponents: Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes & Spending campaign website No on 29 - Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending campaign finance reports California Citizens Against Wasteful Taxes - No on Prop 29 campaign finance reports

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2012 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Kansas • Kentucky • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • South Carolina • Rhode Island • Virginia • West Virginia Political topics Abortion • Admin of gov't • Affirmative action • Bonds • Constitutional conventions • Civil rights • Death penalty • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Environment • Firearms • Gambling • Healthcare • Hunting • Immigration • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Language • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Marriage and family • Motto and symbols • Natural resources • Pension • Property • Redistricting measures • Religion • Legislative salaries • State budgets • State executives • State judiciary • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • 2012 ballot measure petition signature costs • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures • Campaign websites • Official voter guides • Not on the ballot Post-election 2012 analyses • 2012 election results • Campaign contributions

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy